It’s THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.
So is it true or false?
If it ever WASN’T a straw man on this board, it surely is now.
Nobody’s saying that – certainly not the overwhelming number of us engaged in these discussions.
Why is that so difficult (for some) to acknowledge, accept, and move past?
It IS the title of the thread.
I concede the point.
I literally linked to people saying exactly that.
If you think that something being a minority opinion makes it a straw man, then you clearly don’t know what that term means. A straw man is an opinion that nobody has made; it was literally made up solely by the person arguing against it. Hence the term “straw man”; it evokes the image of an enemy that doesn’t exist, but is instead just a human-shaped bundle of straw that a person can knock over to demonstrate their prowess.
But in this case it’s not a bundle of straw. It’s an actual argument made on this board that I linked to (for just one example, I know it has been made in other threads as well but that one is particularly egregious).
Nah. It’s commonly meant to refer to the weakest form OF an opponent’s argument.
And for the majority of us, it is NOT our argument at all. That, too, makes it a textbook straw man argument.
Couple that with his arrogant insistence that people being pessimistic makes them fatalistic, paralyzed, and/or suicidal. How many of us must tell him that this is NOT what he’s seeing before he even begins to accept that we know what’s in our heads better than he does?
If we aren’t worried on his terms, then we aren’t worried correctly. It’s insulting, condescending, and exhausting.
Not according to the dictionary.
Then it should be easy for you to say whether the proposition that “Trump will do whatever he wants and no one can stop him” is true or false, yet you’ve deflected both times I’ve asked.
So then no, you don’t know what the definition is.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman ) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”), instead of the opponent’s proposition.
If you want to argue that this is a waste of time because this is a minority opinion, a fringe opinion on this board, I understand that. And you may have a point. Though it’s an opinion that has repeated often enough to inspire this thread, so it certainly has bothered some people, myself included.
But to insist that nobody has pushed this idea is false.
There is a point where pessimism verges into fatalism, and that has indeed happened when this argument has been pushed (again, I refer back to my earlier example). But I agree that pessimism itself isn’t fatalism; right now it’s realism. Being skeptical about the ability of our systems to protect us against the tactics that the current administration are using is wise, because it has shown itself to not be fully equipped for it. Basically, nobody has tried this shit before, and it seems like there has been an assumption that nobody that could be elected to office would ever do such a thing.
So I do get what you’re saying and agree for the most part. At the same time, the idea that Trump can just ignore the law without consequence kills and derails discussions, and frankly it acts as a threadshit which for me shouldn’t even be acceptable in the Pit; not where people are trying to have any kind of serious discussion at any rate.
You’ll be amazed by how many times I can ignore your leading question. Wanna’ find out?
Then the occasional Doper who occasionally tilts this way – and it’s probably a very few – should be called out on it, while the rest of us should be left the fuck alone on this issue.
Keep reading …
If you don’t even want to discuss the topic of the thread, then what are you doing here?
Your version of the topic of the thread.
Nope. No interest whatsoever.
Thanks, though.
I can’t speak for @Buck_Godot but I believe this OP was targeted at the few you’re talking about. I don’t know how you got dragged into this topic if you wanted no part of it.
A neologism from recent years is not the standard usage of that term. When you are accusing someone of a strawman argument, unless you clarify what you actually mean, you are accusing someone of making shit up from whole cloth, because that is the commonly-used form of that term. Hence why this is just a small note in the article.
Why are you so afraid of answering the question? What implications of your answer terrify you so much?
The black/white, all/nothing, either/or fallacy aspect of it, perhaps?
It isn’t what I’m discussing. I’m discussing what’s happening, where it could lead us, and what’s being done in opposition to it.
I’m also trying to figure out the best way that I can stand against it.
I don’t need to either be accused of, nor engage in, the outlandishly hyperbolic framing of the melodramatic few, and I’d just assume you not paint so many others with the same broad brush that should be reserved for those painfully few.
Getting badgered over this seems shitty to me as well. I’m not trying to add to that.
I’m never hesitant to look up a term to see if it has other meanings that I may not be familiar with.
This one does.
It’s a true or false question. There are only two possible answers by definition. Either the proposition is a fact or it isn’t.
Which is it?
quote=“DavidNRockies, post:755, topic:1011527”]
I’m also trying to figure out the best way that I can stand against it.
[/quote]
Then your answer to the question is highly relevant as to whether it can be stood against at all.
Have you seen how many people – people I’m sure you’d agree are smart, thoughtful, measured, and valued Dopers – are pushing back … and pushing back ON exactly how many people?
It’s a pretty clear dynamic.
You’re truly an idiot on this subject.
It is – by definition – a prediction, and I generally avoid predictions.
And this one has no right or wrong answer. We simply don’t know.